Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I have had a quick look at the other options for surface integrator etc but I haven't had much luck with them, they either render much more slowly (for the scenes I have tried and with my hardware setup) or they crash Luxrender! I think for now I will be sticking to the defaults.
BTW, gulp!
She is such a little cutie! Love your new summer look as well! Hey! You and Mulberry look like you could be sisters! Anyone ever say that before? Love the render!
I see that PhilW and Steve are all over this thing! I can hardly wait to join in with you all.
Do you think this option would work for animations? it would have to perform all of this calc for one frame before moving on to the next? Or would it do 'this' to each frame, then move on like that? Or is this mostly just for still images?
Regardless, I'm glad that I've added it to Carrara.
Mostly too slow for animations, unless the scene is really simple. I think using Carrara's native renderer will be the best option for animations for some time yet. But I tried using the SLG option today and (on my machine at least) it really is a lot faster, although with some limitations (like not doing Lux Glass2 material properly). I am sure that things will speed up as we get new software releases.
how the hell do you use luxus shaders, i have read the readme and the user manual, and look over at carrara cafe and still i am none the wiser, is there some sort of voodoo ritual you have to do?
No water what I try water never readers as water and metal always looks wrong
How do you know the size and frame that Luxus is going to render? Carrara's production frame does not seem to do anything.
Is it a trial and error process?
I think if the default frame shape is used, the visible frame in Carrara is roughly right when it gets translated into Lux, but if you change the shape (for example, have a vertical format rather than horizontal) then the two don't really match at all. So until this gets fixed, it will be a bit of trial and error I'm afraid.
The difference is huge and can't get Luxus to render the frame I want. The scene is full with trees and people, and the trial and error is not practical in this case, it takes a lot of time for Luxus to load the scene. Is this something that can be easily fixed? I'm excited about Luxus, but it seems that I cannot use it for this specific project.
Good news. I have figured this out and the next build will be exact.
Good news. I have figured this out and the next build will be exact.
That is great! Your fast support and respond time is very appreciated.
Thanks! :-)
I think it's just another case of "you can't get something for nothing"...
No matter how you slice it, if you want to simulate reality and get a 100% photo quality render, and do it by simulating all of those bounces of light, it's gonna take time. A lot of time. You can make simplifications in the algorithm to speed things up, but every time you do you lose some accuracy.
If a native renderer takes, say, 3 minutes to do a render, and a Luxrender-type render takes, say 2 hours to do the same scene with 100% accurate photo quality, that's a whole lot of time to cut to make it comparable. That's 3 minutes versus 120 minutes. If you double your processor speed (which is a lot), you're still down to 60 minutes versus 3 minutes. It's REAL hard to make up the difference.
I think many people have a slightly skewed view of what these renderers can do, and how much time it takes. Some give realtime feedback so you get the impression they're blazingly fast (which they are...), but to get a final, usable quality output might take hours.
You can't get something for nothing.... :)
I think it's just another case of "you can't get something for nothing"...
No matter how you slice it, if you want to simulate reality and get a 100% photo quality render, and do it by simulating all of those bounces of light, it's gonna take time. A lot of time. You can make simplifications in the algorithm to speed things up, but every time you do you lose some accuracy.
If a native renderer takes, say, 3 minutes to do a render, and a Luxrender-type render takes, say 2 hours to do the same scene with 100% accurate photo quality, that's a whole lot of time to cut to make it comparable. That's 3 minutes versus 120 minutes. If you double your processor speed (which is a lot), you're still down to 60 minutes versus 3 minutes. It's REAL hard to make up the difference.
I think many people have a slightly skewed view of what these renderers can do, and how much time it takes. Some give realtime feedback so you get the impression they're blazingly fast (which they are...), but to get a final, usable quality output might take hours.
You can't get something for nothing.... :)
Joe - very true. It is good to have the choice, and while Carrara has a very capable renderer, there are situations where the Luxrender quality will give a much higher quality output - given the rendering time. But for animation, the standard Carrara renderer will probably be the one to choose for some time yet. Even then you are probably going to have to make compromises on lighting, quality etc to get the results within a reasonable time.
I'm just constantly amazed how far we have come - the results you can now get from a standard laptop can outstrip what was possible only for high-end film industry only a few years ago.
Not to quibble, but for the most part I think people might be amazed at how the "high-end film industry" is not nearly as "high-end" as many might think. And the difference between the capabilities of the film industry and the average guy has been fairly equal for decades. Similar (or identical) software, and similar (or identical) hardware.
The real turning point, IMO, was back when personal computers came out in the 80's and 90's and people could transport that same CG software to anyone with a PC. Hobbyists were using Maya and Lightwave and AE and all the "high end" VFX software decades ago, when the software developers immediately saw how to expand their market to the average guy with a PC. In fact in many cases the biggest market for some of these companies is not the big studios, but the average enthusiast with a PC.
Hair sims and cloth sims and fluid sims and physics sims and softbody sims and GI renderers and high end compositors and all those high tech features have been available to everyone for many decades. Studios, hobbyists, everyone.
In fact, what might surprise people the most is that the film industry often can't take advantage of many of these cool high tech features, because they have to find quick and easy workarounds in order to meet cost, quality and schedule needs. Not a whole lot of studios can afford 2 hours per frame GI/Lux-type renders, while many hobbyists can. And that has pretty much been the case for a very long time. That's why "fake GI" techniques, for example, were developed and are still used today in many cases. And that's why so many "high end" studios shy away from using hair and fluid sims and cloth sims, for example, unless they really have to and can really deal with the difficulties.
Anyway, just a slightly different perspective, FWIW......
Hi Joe - What you say is true, I was using Lightwave 20 years ago. Maybe the difference is the cost of it all and the power of the hardware, certainly back then when render farms were the norm for film production, versus an individual and lower powered PC for a consumer. But these days, the software and hardware are so powerful by historical standards, that it is more of a level playing field. It is great that so much graphics power is in the hands of ordinary artists who can turn their vision into (virtual) reality. The real difference is the imagination of the user, rather than the power of what they have at their disposal.
Where do I download LUXUS updates? How can I tell if I have the latest version?
I don't think there has been any updates yet.
Hmmm... OK, thanks.